Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations

The Senate Committee on Appropriations will now come to order. We are holding our hearing today in room 2200 of the O Street building. I ask that all Members of the Committee come to the hearing so that we can begin.

We have a couple of hearings going on, so we're not going to get everybody here, but it looks like we can start as a Subcommitee, and I appreciate Senator Seyarto being here with me. We have 28 measures on today's agenda.

There will be a special order of business to start things off with seven measures that are part of a package of bills to address issues around retail theft. There is time sensitivity, so we will be entertaining do pass motions on these measures once we have a quorum.

Once we move on to the regular agenda, we have two other measures that are eligible for do pass motion, and the remaining items are suspense candidates. All members with suspense items before the Committee this morning have waived presentation. We will be taking testimony from the public on each and every item, even if the author has waived presentation.

Before we begin, I want to remind any witnesses to limit their testimony to the fiscal aspects of the bill. Please refrain from lengthy policy discussions and repeating prior testimony in your comments. As I said, we do not have a quorum, so we're going to move right into our business as a Subcommittee until we get enough measures.

We're going to start with file item number one, AB 1779, by Assemblymember Irwin. Please come forward and welcome. Thank you for being here to start the hearing.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, good morning. I'm pleased to present AB 1779, which returns authorities to district attorneys to join charges from multiple counties into one trial when prosecuting organized retail sufferings across multiple jurisdictions. This bill is part of the Californians Together Against Retail Crime package of bills. Organized retail theft continues to plague our communities.

Resulting financial impact burdens not only retailers, but also families trying to purchase household goods. I would also like to note that the provisions that were added to the bill and the Assembly requiring the agreement of all DAs involved, as well as a joinder hearing to prevent any unfair and prejudicial consolidation from taking place.

Thank you and respectfully ask for your support when the time is appropriate.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone here that would like to testify in support of the bill? If so, please come forward to the mic. Witnesses in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support of the Bill as in print, we would remove our support, unfortunately, if we're amended as proposed in the analysis. But as the Bill sits we are support as long as it's not amended. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors in support.

Madam Chair Dan Felizzatto, on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Is there anyone that would like to testify in opposition? Please invite you to come forward. Anyone in opposition? Seeing none, I want to make sure that you have taken the amends. I thought I heard you say that in your opening.

I did not say that the amends were. We will have to take the amends.

Yes. All right. Very good. Are there any questions? Senator Seyarto,

I have a question. Are the amends in there or not right now?

I think they're being put in, in this Committee.

Okay, so the amendments aren't. We're hearing it.

They were, they were not in the public. They were not put in at the Public Safety Committee.

Okay. So it's going to be a do pass as amended. Correct. Okay. So this particular issue has a $150,000 per year price tag. And our limit where we put things into suspense is 100. I mean, it's 50. So why is this not going to suspense with the other bills that cost more than $50,000? That would be a question for the chair or staff.

Yes and the reason for that is because this is part of a package of bills that deal with retail theft that have been prioritized, and that includes Senate bills as well as Assembly bills. This is one of the bills.

So as stated in the last Committee, because of the amendments that are being put in, especially the inoperability amendment, we will not be supporting the Bill. We'll be abstaining from it until they have the language in print and we're able to weigh out the consequences of this inoperability nonsense. Thank you.

Very good. Assemblymember, you may conclude,

Just again ask for your aye vote when the time comes.

Thank you very much. Really appreciate you being here this morning. All right, that is file item number one. Again, we will wait until we have a quorum to make a motion on this. We're going to move on to file item number. Okay, actually, we're going to skip that one because he's not here yet.

We'll move on to file item number three, AB 1802, by Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer. Welcome, sir.

Thank you.

And again, there is an amends as well.

Yes. And I will be taking.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I present AB 1802, which will eliminate the sunsets on the crime of organized retail theft and the operation of the California Highway Patrol Property Crimes Task Force. This bill is part of an assembly package of bills to address retail theft in California.

In 2017, I authored Assembly Bill 1065, which is the OG of all the organized retail theft bills, which created a crime of organized retail theft and established the California Highway Patrol Property Crimes Task Force. To date, the task force has recovered over $30 million in stolen goods.

AB 1802 eliminates the sunset from my original bill and makes the crime of organized retail theft and a CHP task force permanent tools available to law enforcement in California.

The amendments ensure that this bill will take place immediately and allow ample legislative flexibility to ensure that we have taken necessary steps to prevent retail theft while not reverting to overly punitive methods proven not to work.

This bill is necessary to allow law enforcement to utilize the hundreds of millions of dollars invested into retail theft prevention over the last few years. AB 1802 will ensure that law enforcement has the necessary means to arrest and prosecute the organized crime rings that continue to disrupt life in the Golden State.

With me to testify in support of the bill is Dan Felizzatto on behalf of the bill's sponsor, Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon.

Chair members Dan Felizzatto, on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office. As the author stated, this bill will eliminate the sunset. The costs associated with this bill are really minor. The analysis noted court costs associated with this bill.

However, I just want to note that even if we were not prosecuting these individuals under this statute, we would be prosecuting them under other theft statutes. So the court costs are going to exist regardless of whether or not 1802 is on the books. So we respectfully ask for your aye vote because we believe for this Committee the costs associated with this Bill are minor.

Incarceration costs are local. They won't be at CDCR. So we like to say ask for your ayes vote. Thank you very much.

Anyone else like to speak in support? Please come forward. Is there anyone here who would like to speak in opposition? Seeing no one come forward bringing it back to the Committee. Any questions, comments or concerns?

I'll make my comment. So this bill has the same problem as the last one. It's $3.1 million. Despite the comments by the witness, the increase in court costs will be because they're going to actually arrest people and they're going to actually try people.

And so there will be increased court costs over what we're doing today because those people can be already the ones that are being arrested today should already be being arrested. So there's that. The cost, we're already absorbing those. What we're talking about is an additional load, which we should have because of this.

But it's $3.1 million, so that's 20 times as much as the last bill. And so again, this one should be sent to suspense with the rest of them. And that's one of my objections also with the interoperability, I object to that also. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So the Department of Finance doesn't have a file on this bill, so if you would like to conclude this is your time.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. When we get a quorum, we'll take this matter up. Thank you also for being here. Really appreciate it. Assemblymember Zbur file, item number six, which is AB 2943. Thank you for being here on time as well. I'm kind of going through the Members that haven't shown up yet.

Well, I'm a Member of the on-time caucus.

I know what I do appreciate it. That's why I'm making a point of saying to everyone, thank you so much for being here on time because it is important to our operation.

Madam Chair Members, thank you very much. I'm proud to serve as a joint author along with Speaker Revas on this Bill. AB 2943 the California Retail Theft Reduction act.

This bill is a primary component of a broader, comprehensive strategy and package of bills that advances balanced, effective and meaningful solutions to retail crime and endeavors to preserve criminal justice reforms that have been effective at keeping our communities safe.

We've endeavored to achieve consensus wherever possible, and the proposals in this bill are an outgrowth of the work of the Assembly Select Select Committee on Retail Theft, which has held two comprehensive hearings featuring a range of expert perspectives and the product of extensive engagement among the speaker's office, Senate leadership, the governor's office, and with policy experts and key stakeholders, including retailers, workers, criminal justice reform advocates, and law enforcement.

The bill places great emphasis on stopping organized crime rings that are harming our communities. It does this by creating a new crime targeting serial thieves with a penalty of up to three years behind bars for possession of stolen property with the intent to resell.

It also specifies that evidence of intent can include repeated conduct or possession of a quantity of goods inconsistent with personal use. It does not require proof that a defendant acted with another person and applies to both retail thieves and secondary sellers. This item is a key component of the recommendations released by Governor Newsom.

The bill also specifies that the value of thefts from different victims can be aggregated to reach the threshold for grand theft, and the relevant intent standard can be bet by evidence that the acts involved the same defendants are substantially similar in nature and occur within a 90 day period.

Significantly, the bill helps to get at the root cause of theft by expanding the use of diversion and rehabilitation programs like drug courts to increase supervision for shoplifting and petty theft, and the opportunity for early discharge from probation if the program is completely completed.

It also expands tools for police to arrest shoplifting based on the witnesses sworn statement or video footage, and the bill extends the ability of police to keep repeat offenders and those committing organized retail crime in custody.

Protecting businesses and retailers that report retail crime by ensuring that they will not have nuisance actions brought against them is a final component of the bill.

We need to make sure that we are pursuing reforms that are effective at targeting retail crime while avoiding a wholesale rollback of existing reforms that have made meaningful change and have reduced the cost, including the emotional cost to our communities, of imprisoning people for minor infractions. With that, and that's what this bill intends to do.

I'm grateful for the speaker's leadership on AB 2943 for the partnership of the pro tem and Members of the Senate carrying bills that are part of the retail crime package, for the governor's strong leadership, and to all the stakeholders for their engagement, including retailers, workers, criminal justice reform advocates and law enforcement.

I ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you very much. And just to be sure there are amends as well that you're taking, we'll be accepting amends. Thank you very much. Alrighty. Are there any individuals that would like to testify in support?

Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris Micheli, on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, in support of the bill, as in print, my client doesn't have a position on the proposed amendments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair Members. Dan Felizatto on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Is there anyone here that would like to testify in opposition? Seeing no opposition. Oh, I'm sorry.

Sorry. Cherylman not testifying in opposition, but ACLU California action is opposed to the bills written. Just want to thank the author for speaking, speaking with us and talking through some of the issues we have with the bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anyone else in opposition? Don't want to miss anybody. Polls in the middle of the room are problematic. So the Department of Finance does not have a file on this bill. So we'll move on to Committee Members. Any comments, questions or concerns?

Senator Seyarto, we never clarified the amendments. I want to make sure there weren't any more amendments added in addition to the ones we talked about potentially adding last week when we could have talked about them. One was the interoperability. Correct. And one was urgency. Correct. And there's none other than those two?

That is correct.

Okay. Again, this issue, one to $10 million a year, far exceeds the $50,000 threshold for putting it on suspense. It should go on suspense, and without the interoperability added into it, it's not going to get a vote from us, from me. Urgency. We don't have a problem with that. These bills are good bills.

If they didn't have that interoperability clause and you'd have full support from everybody, and that would be a bipartisan bill. So again, the cost, it far exceeds what we usually put on suspense, and we should be putting these on suspense. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I see no further questions. Assembly Members of Zbur may conclude.

At the appropriate time I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Again, we need a quorum, and so we'll pass on that. So we have three other bills that are on our special order of business, and that is AB 1960 by Assemblymember Soria. And my understanding is Assemblymember Berman will be presenting that, AB 1972 by Assemblymember Alanis and then AB 3209 by Assemblymember Berman.

So if we could urge them to pretend they're part of the on time caucus, that would be really good, because then we could get on and it looks like we have a quorum. Fabulous. So we'll just wait a second and we'll take the roll and start doing business.

[Roll Call]

So we we do have a quorum. While we're waiting for the authors, let's go ahead and take up the bills that we have already heard. We'll start with AB 1779. By assemblymember Irwin. The motion is do pass as amended.

[Roll Call]

That vote. That Bill has three votes. We'll put it on call for the absent Members. We'll move on to AB 1802 by Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer. Actually, yes. The motion is do pass is amended on this bill as well. Okay, there is a substitute motion.

It is clear that bill is going to have some costs, and our analysis agrees with the Committee's analysis. The rule for suspense is whether it's $50,000 or more. And this bill clearly meets that criteria to send a suspense. And we have a huge deficit that we're facing in our budget.

And so I move that AB 1802 be sent to the suspense file. And I wish I had been able to do that on the previous one. Thank you

That's all good. There is a substitute motion. The Chair recommends a no. And Senator Seyarto and I. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That was good.

Bradford, Ciarto, aye. Siarto, aye. Wahhab. No. Wahab. No.

The motion fails, thankfully, and so the motion to do passes amended is next. And that's an aye vote. My recommendation is aye.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has three vote. We're going to place it on call for the absent Members, and then we're going to take up AB 2943 by Assemblymembers Zbur. And the motion is do pass as amend.

I have a substitute motion.

Very good.

I moved that AB 2943 be sent to the society file.

That is a substitute motion. The Chair recommends no vote. And Senator Seyarto an aye vote. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill fails. So we'll move on to the motion in chief, which is do pass as amended. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The bill has three votes. We'll put it on call for the absent Members. And I see that Assemblymember Alanis is here, so we'll move on to AB 1972 by Assemblymember Alanis. Thank you so much for joining us here today. That was a big sigh. We're not that mean.

Well, I just came out of one Committee. I had some witnesses who were blind. I had to help them down to the first floor. So I'm just running back up here to be here.

Out of breath?

Yes, a little bit. All right, well, thank you, Madam Chair, Mister Vice Chair. Members, today I am proud to present 1972 AB 1972, which will enhance our state's ability to comprehensively respond to cargo theft. AB 1972 expands on the successful California Highway Patrol's Regional Property Crime Task Force to support identified counties with increased levels of cargo theft.

The bill will also require the CHP to provide railroad police with logistical support and other law enforcement resources like personnel and equipment, and the furtherance of combating cargo theft.

As part of the larger Assembly retail theft package introduced alongside some of my democratic colleagues, this bill will further our shared goals of strengthening our laws and providing much needed assistance to our businesses and law enforcement communities who have struggled to respond to the growing number of retail theft crimes throughout the state.

AB 1972 is only one element of the larger solution that California must employ in order to solve this multi prolonged issue. I want to thank you for your time and request for an ayevote.

So, Assemblymember, there is an amendment that I understand you're going to be taking.

Yes, I will be taken. I'm sorry, I missed that part, too. I will be, yes, taking amendments.

Thank you very much. So we're going to move on to witnesses in support. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

Madam Chair Members, Dan Felizzatto, on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Is there anyone who would like to testify in opposition?

Similar statement before Madam Chair. ACLU does have concerns with the bill and we are remaining in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? The Department of Finance doesn't have a file on this bill, so we're going to move on to Committee questions. Senator Seyarto.

I have a question. What is the amendment that they're going to be taking on this particular bill? Urgency.

Inoperability and urgency.

Yes, actually, hold on. I got the actual. So I don't misquote anything.

Okay, looks like it's just the urgency.

The make sure they know that the inoperability amendment is not going to enter into the bill.

Okay, very good.

All right, thank you very much with that clarification. Watch this.

Watch this. Okay, so no further questions. Assemblymember, if you would like to close.

I'm very proud to be part of this package to work with my colleagues in the Assembly, and I request your aye vote.

Thank you very much. There is a motion on this, do pass as amended. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. That has four votes, and we'll leave it on call for the absent Members.

Thank you chair.

Thank you very much.

So we're just waiting for one more presentation on two bills. For those of you that are here for AB 1794, Assemblymember Mccarty, he has pulled his bill, so we will not be hearing it today. Okay, so we'll move on to our, the measures that are not the special order of the day. And we'll start with AB 990.

Very good. Scratch that. We do have an author. Welcome, Assemblymember Berman.

Thank you, Chair Caballero.

Would you like to take up the Soria bill or your own first?

Sure, I'll do the Soria bill.

How about we take up AB 1960 by Assemblymember Soria with Assemblymember Berman presenting. Thank you for doing that.

My pleasure. And for the record, I guess it's the Soria bill for another 2 seconds. Thank you for allowing me to present AB 1960 on behalf of the bill's new author, Speaker Robert Reavis. AB 1960 restores an important tool for law enforcement to combat retail theft and keep our communities safe.

Specifically, it reinstates a tiered sentencing enhancement if the value of property stolen or damaged during felony is exceptionally high. This bill bolsters tools for police and prosecutors to take down those who commit and profit from smash and grabs.

And AB 1960 is part of the Legislature's comprehensive package of bills to address retail crime and theft in a meaningful and balanced way. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. There are amends on this bill, and I assume you're taking those amendments.

I am absolutely taking the amendments.

Very good. So now we'll move on to witnesses in support. Anyone who would like to testify in support of AB 1960, please come forward.

Madam Chair Members Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association without the benefit of seeing additional potential amendments. Our position is the same as on Ms. Irwin's bill. We are support if the bill is not amended. And we'll be removing support if it contains the inoperability clause. Thank you.

Understood. Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Is there anyone in opposition? Please come forward.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Duke Cooney, on behalf of ACLU, California Action, we are opposed to this bill as written. We feel existing law is more than sufficient to address the issue. But, thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? All right. The Department of Finance does not have a file on this bill, so we'll move on to Committee Members. Comments, questions? Senator Seyarto, what a surprise.

It is a surprise. It's a pleasure. A pleasure and an honor, sir. Again, Ms Soria's. I'm sorry, Assembly. The speaker's bill has a cost of 150,000 to $1.0 million per year, which far exceeds our $50,000 rule to go to suspense. And so this meets that. And so with the interoperability clause.

Again, this is something that we are not going to be able to support, even though we support trying to do something about our crime using these bills. As noted in the last vote, that didn't have the interoperability clause, and we voted in favor of that bill.

So with that said, appreciate you presenting the bill on behalf of the speaker.

Thank you, sir.

Very good. Seeing no other comments, there is a motion. All right. We'll take up that substitute motion after we've heard the closing. If you would like to close out, now's your time.

On behalf of Speaker Rivas, I am quite certain that he would be opposed to. To any substitute amendments or motions. And I respectfully ask for. aye vote on this bill.

Thank you very much. There's a substitute motion. Senator Seyarto.

I move that AB 962 dispense file.

There is a substitute motion. The Chair will vote no and ask for a no vote. The Senator Seyarto is asking for an aye vote. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The motion fails. The amendment in chief is do pass as amended. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call] 11

Bill has three votes. We're going to put it on call for the absent Members. And that leaves your bill, which is file item number seven, AB 3209.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. AB 3209 would provide a new enforcement tool that will keep stores and workers safe from the rise of retail crime. Specifically, it would authorize a court to impose a retail crime restraining order for up to two years for theft, vandalism or battery on an employee within the store.

The bill strikes a balance between providing an additional enforcement tool to keep stores, customers and workers safe while not perpetuating the underlying causes of retail theft, such as poverty. AB 3209 is also part of the Legislature's comprehensive package of bills to address retail crime and theft in a thoughtful and balanced way. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Very good. Again, you're accepting the amendment.

And I am accepting the amendments.

All right, very good. We'll now move on to witnesses in support. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support of this bill? Is there anyone here who would like to testify in opposition?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Duke Cooney, on behalf of ACLU California Action, we also have concerns with this bill as well. We feel that it elevates a lot of well resourced retail chains above other victims of violent crime who desperately need resources and should be greatlier considered than some of these big rocks retailers. But thank you.

Thank you very much. The Department of Finance does not have a file on this, so this brings it back to Committee Members. Senator Seyarto.

Same issues as previous. This far exceeds the $50,000 for eligibility to go to suspense, and it also has the interoperability amendment in it, and so therefore, we will not be able to support it. Thank you.

Very good. Seeing no other comments or questions, Assemblymember Berman, you may conclude.

Respectfully asked for aye vote.

Very good.There is a motion.

I have a substitute motion.

There is a substitute motion. Senator Seyarto, on your substitute motion.

I move that AB 3209 be sent to the CIS offense file appropriately.

The chair recommends a no recommendation. And Senators an aye. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Very good. The motion fails. Despite the fact that Senator Jones is over there trying to lobby. We have the motion in chief, which is do pass as amended. Please, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

This is the motion in chief.

[Roll Call]

Your Bill has three votes. We'll put it on call for the absent Members.

Thank you very much.

So, thank you. Very good. So that concludes our special order of business. Again, AB 1794 was pulled, and we will move on to our suspense file. AB 990 by Assembly Member Grayson. Assembly Member Grayson has waived presentation, so we'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support of AB 990?

If so, please come forward. How about anybody who would like to testify in opposition? Are there any Committee questions on this Bill? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Oh, actually, this Bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 990 will move to suspense. Gotta get in the groove here. So, AB 1516 by Assembly Member Kalra.

Assembly Member Kalra has waived presentation, so we're gonna go directly to witness testimony. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support of AB 1516? Anybody who would like to testify in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions from Committee? If not, this Bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, SB 1516 will move to suspense.

Moving on to AB 1725 by Assembly Member McCarty. Assembly Member McCarty has waived presentation, so we will go directly to witness to testimony. Are there any witnesses here who would like to speak in support of 1725? Anyone who would like to testify in opposition? 1725? This Bill is a suspense file candidate.

So without objection, AB 1725 will move to suspense. Going to move on to AB 2076 by Assembly Member McCarty. Senator, Assembly Member McCarty has waived presentation, so we're going to go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses who would like to present or testify in support of 2076? Welcome.

Good morning. Mario Guerrero, on behalf of the University of California, this Bill would allow us to build more affordable student housing on campus. We appreciate an aye vote and consideration. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else who would like to testify in support? Anyone who would like to testify in opposition?

Finances?

We do have a finance on this one, so if you'd like to present, you're always welcome at the table, but that works fine, too.

I appreciate it. Since we only have a few files today, I'll make it easy and I'll go back and forth. Thank you, Chair, Michelle Perrault, with the Department of Finance. Department of Finance does note an opposition on this Bill.

The Bill would transfer $200 million from the Pooled Money Investment Account, the PMIA account, into the student housing revolving loan fund.

We would just note that the use of the PMIA without specified repayment funds represents a significant cost pressure to the General Fund, which has not been included in the 2024 budget or in any of our multi year projections.

The use of this fund in this manner also is going to present some out your risks related to the state's fiscal flexibility and could result in General Fund costs by necessitating some external cash flow borrowing from General Fund. That would be noted.

Also, we're uncertain about how the Bill could impact our rating agency assessments of our fiscal management and creditworthiness, which obviously is something we are always mindful of. And then lastly, we would just note that this proposal really is inconsistent with the intended use of PMIA.

It's never been used for this type of purpose, and it's really kind of unclear as to whether or not it's appropriate under our constitutional debt limit.

We would note that the Administration did have proposed Trailer Bill Language as part of the 2024 budget package, which will create a lease revenue bond financing program which could provide some of the affordable student housing for California community colleges without having to use PMIA. So at this time, we're opposed.

Very good. Thank you very much for being here today. Any questions or concerns by the Committee? Seeing none. This Bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, we're going to move AB 2076 to suspense. If you'd like, I'll take up the other Bill for which you're here.

Why don't we move on to AB 2120 by Assembly Member Chen? Let me ask first, let me say that Assembly Member has waived presentation, so we're going to go directly to the witness testimony. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support of AB 2120? Anyone who would like to testify in opposition to 2120?

Seeing none. Department of Finance.

Thank you so much, Chair appreciate that. Again, Michelle Perrault, Department of Finance, we do currently have an oppose on this Bill. We do believe the Bureau of Security Investigative Services does anticipate unabsorbable costs of $138,000 from the Private Security Services Fund in 25-26 and 129,000 in 26-27 and ongoing for a one staff service analyst position to review and investigate the complaints.

The estimated cost to implement the Bill does include some funds of $1,000.2526 to update the codes. But what we would note is the private security services fund is structurally imbalanced at this time and additional costs would contribute to a need for a fee increase. So therefore we are opposed.

Very good. Thank you so much for being here today. This Bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2120 we'll move to suspense. Okay, we'll go back to the, to the top of the list or where we were left off. AB 1792 by Assembly Member Rodriguez. Assembly Member Rodriguez has waived presentation.

So we're going to go directly to those who would like to testify in support. Please come forward. Is there anyone who would like to testify in opposition? Seeing no one, this Bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 1792 will move to suspense. AB 1937, by Assembly Member Gallagher. Assembly Member Gallagher has waived presentation.

AB 1938, 1938. Sorry. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support of AB 1938? Is there anyone that would like to testify in opposition to AB 1938? Seeing no support or opposition, this Bill is a suspense. Oof. I guess I need more coffee. This Bill is again suspense file candidate. And without objection, AB 1938.

We'll move to suspense. Okay. All righty. Assembly Member Papan, I see that you are here, so we're going to jump ahead in the agenda and move on to AB 23, excuse me, 2123 by Assembly Member Papan. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Members. Nice to be with all of you. So I'm here to present AB 2123 which is really a very straightforward Bill, and what it basically says is that an employer may not require you to take two weeks of vacation before you can start collecting on your paid family leave.

So my Bill removes the provision that allows employers to do this. Since employees pay into this program, they should be able to access these benefits without strings attached because the paid family leave program is financed solely by the workers themselves. This Bill has a modest fiscal impact that includes a one time cost of $67,000 to EDD.

And here to speak in support of the Bill, I have a witness. That is Miss Julia Parrish, and she comes to us from legal aid at work.

Thank you. My name is Julia Parrish. I'm a senior Staff Attorney at Legal Aid at Work, which is a statewide nonprofit that provides for legal services for low wage workers. And this is an issue we hear about a lot on our helpline.

We hear from thousands of families a year one workers get very confused about the way that they can access paid family leave benefits. It can lead to them making mistakes in applying.

Eliminating this requirement eases that application process for all users and also increases access to paid family leave benefits, which have numerous important health and wellbeing outcomes for families, particularly for families with low incomes who can't access that time off without these benefits. And as Assembly Member Papan said, it's entirely worker funded. It is not General Fund money.

And removing this impact would allow folks to use the benefits that they have been paying in for and then also save any vacation time they have for other needs that come up, particularly when welcoming a new child.

You need those time when your child gets sick or you have to go to a field trip or things like that. So we think that this is a modest change that will have a profound impact for lots of working families across the state. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to testify and support?

Hello. Dustin Buyers on behalf of Clean Earth for Kids strongly supports. And in addition, the North County Equity and Justice, ecosustainability peeps and NCCCA also strongly supports. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to testify and support? How about anybody that would like to testify in opposition saying none? We'll bring the matter back to the Committee. There is a motion to move the Bill. Do pass. Any questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none, you may conclude.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just request an aye vote.

Thank you very much. The motion is do pass. Please call the roll.

Roll Call

Bill has four votes. We'll put it on call for the absent members. Thank you. We're going to go back to where we left off. And that is AB 1943 by Assemblymember Weber. Assemblymember Weber has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support of AB 1943? Welcome.

Hello. Justin Bowers on behalf of Clean Earth for Kids, strongly supports. And in addition, the North County Equity Injustice, Ecosustainability P1eeps and NCCDCA, also strongly supports.

Thank you very much.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Tiyesha Watts with the California Academy of Family Physicians, in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Is there anyone who would like to testify in opposition? Seeing no opposition, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, AB 1943 will move to suspense. Move on to AB 2250 by Assemblymember Weber. Again, Assemblymember Weber has waived presentation. So we're going to go to witness testimony.

Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

Hi, Tiyesha Watts with the California Academy of Family Physicians, proud sponsors of this bill.

Thank you very much.

Hello. Justin Bowers. On behalf of CleanEarth4Kids, strongly supports. And in addition, North County Equity and Justice, Facts, Eco-Sustainability Peeps and NCCCA, also strongly supports. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Anyone in opposition? This bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2250 will move to suspense. Going to move on to AB 2024 by Assemblymember Pacheco. Assemblymember Pacheco has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support of AB 2024?

Anyone who would like to testify in opposition? Seeing neither this bill is a suspense file candidate, so we're going to move AB 2024 to the suspense file. Moving on to AB 2131 by Assemblymember Valencia who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify and support? Anyone who would like to testify in opposition?

Seeing neither this again is a suspense file candidate. So AB 2131 will move to suspense. Moving on to AB 2137 by Assemblymember Quirk-Silva. Assemblymember Quirk-Silva has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify and support? Anyone here to testify in opposition to 2137.

Again seeing neither is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2137 will move to suspense. AB 2449 by Assemblymember Ta. Assemblymember Ta has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? Is there anyone here who would like to testify in opposition?

Again, this is a suspense file candidate, so AB 2449 will move to suspense. AB 2631 by Assemblymember Gabriel 2621. I'm checking to see if anybody's awake. Again, Assemblymember Gabriel has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify and support? Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Danny Offer with Every Town for Gun Safety. We're the sponsor of the bill and strong support. Thank you.

Very good. Anyone else in support of 2621? How about anyone in opposition? This bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2621 will move to suspense. AB 2707 by Assemblymember Mike Fong. Assemblymember Fong has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? Anyone to testify in opposition?

This bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2707 will move to suspense. AB 2725 by Assemblymember Blanca Rubio. Assemblymember Rubio has waived presentations. So we're going to go directly to witness testimony. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support of 2725? Anyone in opposition?

Again, this bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2725 will move to suspense. AB 3134 at 3143 by Assemblymember Lowenthal. Assemblymember Lowenthal has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify and support? How about anyone in opposition? Again, AB 3143 is a suspense file candidate.

So without objection, it will move to suspense AB 3223 by Assemblymember Wilson. Assemblymember Wilson as well, has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support?

Hi. Justin Bowers, on behalf of Clean Earth for Kids, strongly supports. Additionally, the North County Equity and Justice, Eco-Sustainability Peeps and NCCCA also strongly support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Anyone in opposition? Again, this bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 3223 will move to suspense. And finally, AB 3245 by Assemblymember Joe Patterson. Assemblymember Patterson has waived presentations, so we'll go directly to witness testimony. Is there anyone who would like to testify in support?

Hello. Justin Bowers on behalf of Cleanearthforkids.org, strongly supports. Additionally, North County Equity and Justice, Eco-Sustainability Peeps and the NCCCA also strongly supports. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Is there anybody that would like to testify in opposition? Seeing no opposition, this bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 3245 will move to suspense. One file left.

I just promoted you to Vice Chair.

Oh, you're the Vice Chair. You'd be kind.

I took the gavel back from Seyarto.

Oh, whoops. My bad.

My bad. To keep it more like a potato. All right, we're going to move to item eight, Senate Bill 1481 by Senator Caballero. Claims against the state appropriations. Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much, Mister Vice Chair. SB 1481 is the second claims Bill carried by the Chairs of the Appropriations Committee each year to provide appropriation authority for legal judgments and settlements approved by the Department of Justice as well as the Department of Finance.

This urgency Bill appropriates 19.3 million from the General Fund to DOJ for the payment of the following claims against the state Auburn v. Bonta, Davis v. the State of California, Suliotes v. the California Victims Compensation Board, a coordinated proceeding of five cases against the State Water Resources Control Board, and Welchin v. Banta.

These judgments and settlements are binding state obligations. Any funds appropriated in excess of the amounts required for the claims will revert to the General Fund. With me today are Justin, Rosa and other representatives from the Department of Justice who can answer any technical questions about the individual claims.

I also have authors amendments to offer in order to address several technical issues as specified in the staff analysis, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you, Senator.

Witnesses in support.

Good morning, Mister Vice Chair and honorable Members of the Committee, and appreciate the opportunity to discuss SB 1481 with you on behalf of the sponsor. Attorney General, we would like to thank the Committee staff for the detailed Bill analysis sent to Chair Caballero for authoring SB 1481.

Similar to the first claims Bill that was brought before you last week, SB 1481 is a Bill that would appropriate 19,289,000 from the General Fund to the Attorney General for the payment of claims, settlements, or judgments against the state arising from the five specified actions in which the state was presented by the Attorney General as described by Chair Caballero.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Joining me today are supervising deputy attorneys General Bruce McGegan and Anya Bin Saka and Deputy Attorney General Allison Goldsmith. In case you have any specific questions on behalf of the Attorney General, we respectfully request your. I vote, and happy to answer questions. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson. On behalf of the South San Joaquin irrigation District and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition? One more time. Witnesses in opposition seeing none. Department of Finance doesn't have a file on this Bill, so we'll move to Committee Members. Comments from Committee Members. Have a comment, Senator Seyarto?

All right, well, there are claims that are certainly supportable. There are also claims that are highly questionable because these are our taxpayer dollars going out. And in one of these cases, it appears that crime does pay.

It is clear that this person actually did do the crime, and now he's being compensated for that, and his attorneys are being compensated. The person was already compensated, 800,000. Now his attorneys need 1.625 for their work on finding whatever technicality it was that they were able to get him unconvicted on, but they are.

The District Attorney's office says that he is, in fact, guilty of this crime. These should be separated out so that the ones that are very supportable. You know, we can get those through. But for us to continue to compensate people for crimes that they actually did is absurd.

And so I'm going to be laying off this because I want these separated out so that we can actually vote no on the ones that are ridiculous and put the other ones forward that clearly are our responsibility to pay out. Thank you.

Any other comments from comittee Members? There is a motion on the Bill, Senator. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Secretary, please call a roll.

Roll Call

The current vote is two to zero. We'll put the Bill on call for Members to come down and add on, and I'll turn the gavel back to the proper holder of the gavel.

Okay. Thank you very much. That concludes the bells we're going to take up today. We need to have the absence of members come to the committee in order to vote. So we're going to take a short recess so that we can get our absent members. So we're back.

Senate Appropriations Committee is back in order, and we're going to lift the call on AB 1972, which is Assemblymember Alanis. Please call the roll.

The motion is due passes amended to the senate floor. [Roll Call]

That is five to zero, and we're going to put it on call for the absent members. So we're waiting for the last two members of the fommittee, and then we'll lift the call on all of the bills. So we are back in recess again.

The Senate Appropriations Committee is back in session, so we're going to take up the special order of business bills first and we'll run right through them. And then we have a couple of bills that were heard in file order.

So let me just say that AB 1794 by Assemblymember McCarty was pulled, and so we did not take that up today. We'll start with Assemblymember Irwins, AB 1779. The motion is due pass as amended. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. The vote is five to zero. Moving on to AB 1802 by Assemblymember Jones Sawyer. The motion is due pass as amended. Please call the roll.

[Roll Al

That Bill is out, five to zero. Moving on to AB 1960. And that Bill is by Speaker Rivas. And the motion is due pass as amended. Please call the roll.

Jones, Ashby, Ashby I Bradford. Bradford I sierto.

That Bill is out, five to zero. Moving on to AB 1972 by Assemblymember Alanis. The motion is due pass as amended. Please call the roll.

Ashby Aye.

Ashby I Bradford. Bradford Aye. That Bill is out, seven to zero. AB 2943 by Assemblymember Zbur. The motion is due pass as amended. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Five to zero. That bill is out, five to zero. Moving on to AB 3209 by Assemblymember Berman. The motion is due pass as amended. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out, five to zero. Next is SB 1481 by myself, Senator Caballero. The motion is due pass as amended. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Five to zero. That Bill is out. Hmm. I was going to take notes. And finally, AB 213-023-2123 by assemblymember Papan. The motion is due pass. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Seven to zero. That bill is out. That concludes our agenda for the Senate Appropriations Committee. Thank you to everyone who testified today and made our job a lot easier. Really appreciate it. We are adjourned.